Manipulation of Stable Matchings using Minimal Blacklists

Gale and Sotomayor (1985) have shown that in the Gale-Shapley matching algorithm (1962), the proposed-to side W (referred to as women there) can strategically force the W-optimal stable matching as the M-optimal one by truncating their preference lists, each woman possibly blacklisting all but one man. As Gusfield and Irving have already noted in 1989, no results are known regarding achieving this feat by means other than such preference-list truncation, i.e. by also permuting preference lists. We answer Gusfield and Irving's open question by providing tight upper bounds on the amount of blacklists and their combined size, that are required by the women to force a given matching as the M-optimal stable matching, or, more generally, as the unique stable matching. Our results show that the coalition of all women can strategically force any matching as the unique stable matching, using preference lists in which at most half of the women have nonempty blacklists, and in which the average blacklist size is less than 1. This allows the women to manipulate the market in a manner that is far more inconspicuous, in a sense, than previously realized. When there are less women than men, we show that in the absence of blacklists for men, the women can force any matching as the unique stable matching without blacklisting anyone, while when there are more women than men, each to-be-unmatched woman may have to blacklist as many as all men. Together, these results shed light on the question of how much, if at all, do given preferences for one side a priori impose limitations on the set of stable matchings under various conditions. All of the results in this paper are constructive, providing efficient algorithms for calculating the desired strategies.Comment: Hebrew University of Jerusalem Center for the Study of Rationality discussion paper 64

A Hydraulic Approach to Equilibria of Resource Selection Games

Drawing intuition from a (physical) hydraulic system, we present a novel framework, constructively showing the existence of a strong Nash equilibrium in resource selection games (i.e., asymmetric singleton congestion games) with nonatomic players, the coincidence of strong equilibria and Nash equilibria in such games, and the uniqueness of the cost of each given resource across all Nash equilibria. Our proofs allow for explicit calculation of Nash equilibrium and for explicit and direct calculation of the resulting (unique) costs of resources, and do not hinge on any fixed-point theorem, on the Minimax theorem or any equivalent result, on linear programming, or on the existence of a potential (though our analysis does provide powerful insights into the potential, via a natural concrete physical interpretation). A generalization of resource selection games, called resource selection games with I.D.-dependent weighting, is defined, and the results are extended to this family, showing the existence of strong equilibria, and showing that while resource costs are no longer unique across Nash equilibria in games of this family, they are nonetheless unique across all strong Nash equilibria, drawing a novel fundamental connection between group deviation and I.D.-congestion. A natural application of the resulting machinery to a large class of constraint-satisfaction problems is also described.Comment: Hebrew University of Jerusalem Center for the Study of Rationality discussion paper 67

A Stable Marriage Requires Communication

The Gale-Shapley algorithm for the Stable Marriage Problem is known to take $\Theta(n^2)$ steps to find a stable marriage in the worst case, but only $\Theta(n \log n)$ steps in the average case (with $n$ women and $n$ men). In 1976, Knuth asked whether the worst-case running time can be improved in a model of computation that does not require sequential access to the whole input. A partial negative answer was given by Ng and Hirschberg, who showed that $\Theta(n^2)$ queries are required in a model that allows certain natural random-access queries to the participants' preferences. A significantly more general - albeit slightly weaker - lower bound follows from Segal's general analysis of communication complexity, namely that $\Omega(n^2)$ Boolean queries are required in order to find a stable marriage, regardless of the set of allowed Boolean queries. Using a reduction to the communication complexity of the disjointness problem, we give a far simpler, yet significantly more powerful argument showing that $\Omega(n^2)$ Boolean queries of any type are indeed required for finding a stable - or even an approximately stable - marriage. Notably, unlike Segal's lower bound, our lower bound generalizes also to (A) randomized algorithms, (B) allowing arbitrary separate preprocessing of the women's preferences profile and of the men's preferences profile, (C) several variants of the basic problem, such as whether a given pair is married in every/some stable marriage, and (D) determining whether a proposed marriage is stable or far from stable. In order to analyze "approximately stable" marriages, we introduce the notion of "distance to stability" and provide an efficient algorithm for its computation